K. Sreedhar Rao, J.

1. Heard Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellants, and Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. The material facts of the prosecution case disclose that one Smti Anita Chakraborty is the deceased and Ms. Gita Das, sister of the deceased, is the complainant who lodged the FIR. Accused No. 1 is appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 8/2008 and husband of the deceased Appellant No. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 7/2008, who is accused No. 2, is brother of accused No. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 8/2008. The appellant Nos. 3 and 4 in Criminal Appeal No. 7/2008 are said to be hired mercenaries engaged by accused No. 2 at the instance of accused No. 1 to cause murder of the deceased. There were matrimonial disputes between accused No. 1 and the deceased. Before the incident, accused No. 1 had requested accused No. 2 to make arrangement for causing murder of the deceased. But for some reasons, the murder could not be done. Accused No. 1 reminded the accused No. 2 about the murder to be caused. Accused No. 2 thereupon engaged accused Nos. 3 and 4 to cause the murder. On 09.10.99 in the morning, accused No. 1 brought the deceased to the house of PW2 and left the deceased at the house of PW2 and he went away. PW2 was present at the house but husband of PW2 was not at the house. Accused Nos. 3 and 4, who were supposed to be strangers to the deceased and PW2, caused the death of the deceased by stabbing and fled away.

2. PW2 lodged the complaint before the police on the ensuing day. Police conducted the inquest and the dead body is also subjected to post mortem. Post mortem report discloses that death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of the abdominal injury. Death is homicidal and injuries are ante mortem.

3. The investigating officer, in the course of investigation, apprehended accused Nos. 3 and 4 on 25.10.99 and makes a requisition to Additional District Magistrate, Bongaigaon, for magisterial assistance in the conduct of investigation. The Additional District Magistrate deputes PW25, an Executive Magistrate, to participate and assist the investigating officer in the investigation. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 were interrogated by P W20 in presence of PW25 and, in course of interrogation, they confessed that they had been engaged by accused Nos. 1 and 2 to cause the murder and that they were paid Rs. 8,000/- for causing the murder. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 voluntarily led the police to the spot where they had concealed the dagger used for commission of the offence and the blood stained clothing.

4. The investigating officer arrested accused Nos. 1 and 2 on 25.10.99 and made a request to the Judicial Magistrate for police custody for two days. That was granted. Further extension of two more days was also granted on the request of the investigating officer. Even before the expiry of the extended period of two days of police custody, accused Nos. 1 and 2 were produced before the Judicial Magistrate for recording confessional statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.. Accordingly/on 29.10.99, the Magistrate, after giving three hours time for reflection, recorded the confessional statement of accused Nos. 1 and 2.

5. On the voluntary instance of the accused, the weapon used for committing the offence and the blood stained cap was recovered. The investigating officer, after expiry of the period of two days of police custody, again made a requisition for extension of police custody by two more days and that was granted. The investigating officer, even before the expiry of the extended period of police custody, produced accused Nos. 1 and 2 before the Magistrate for recording confessional statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.. Accordingly, on 29.10.2009, the Magistrate, after giving three hours time for reflection, recorded the confessional statement of accused Nos. 1 and 2.

6. On the next day, accused Nos. 3 and 4 were also produced and their confessional statements have been recorded under Section 164 by the Judicial Mag